2009-01-07, 13:14
When will Aeon 2 be available to download?
2009-01-07, 13:20
CuFk Wrote:When will Aeon 2 be available to download?
You didn't feel like going through the thread, huh? :/
"When it's done", which we are all hoping will be this month.
2009-01-07, 13:23
don't want to hijack this thread but have a quick question relating to the last few posts .. i see djh was talking about XMC over the last couple thread posts he made .. i've heard of it and what it does .. haven't used it though
i also have heard of MIP (Media Info Plus)
whats the difference between those two ? which ones better ??
i also have heard of MIP (Media Info Plus)
whats the difference between those two ? which ones better ??
2009-01-07, 13:23
djh_ Wrote:Well, having just spent two hours with XBMC Media Companion, a bottle of whiskey and a gun, I can safely say there are a few issues with XBMC's scraping of the IMDb, and indeed the IMDb itself. For one, the MPAA ratings on the IMDb are split between two fields: "Certification" and "MPAA". Neither XBMC nor XBMC Media Companion (XMC) can scrape from the former, which means you have to add those entries manually. Secondly, what the XBMC scraper considers "Studio" is actually "Company" on the IMDb, meaning that all sorts of junk data is pulled down. So rather than, say, Warner Bros being listed for The Matrix, what you actually get is Groucho Film Partnership. Useless, in other words, and another case of having to enter the values yourself.
.....
Then post a proper bug report on trac and get it fixed
2009-01-07, 13:43
-->pletopia, there are thread for both of those, I suspect you will find better answers there.
XMC
MIP
XMC
MIP
2009-01-07, 14:07
parena: Sorry, but I didn't find that while I was going through the thread.
2009-01-07, 14:46
CuFk Wrote:parena: Sorry, but I didn't find that while I was going through the thread.
No problem. Perhaps it was a bit hidden, it's becoming a big thread.
2009-01-07, 16:50
Jezz_X Wrote:Then post a proper bug report on trac and get it fixed
I didn't think it was fixable, tbh. It's more a problem with how IMDb discriminates between production companies and studios. (It doesn't.)
2009-01-07, 16:51
Jezz_X Wrote:Then post a proper bug report on trac and get it fixed
I know this is something that "should" be fixed. But I find it much easier just to use something like Media Companion on a PC so I can manually groom my library and fill in any missing info.
2009-01-07, 21:58
@djh_
When getting our posters ready for stark you told us that we wanted them to be at least 1080pixles in height. My movie collection includes many older and less popular movies so i have many posters that are around 750 px high. Do you think it would be worth it to bump up the resolution of these in photoshop even if i will be running my screen at 720p? I know that increasing the resolution is not the most ideal solution but would it be better than nothing?
When getting our posters ready for stark you told us that we wanted them to be at least 1080pixles in height. My movie collection includes many older and less popular movies so i have many posters that are around 750 px high. Do you think it would be worth it to bump up the resolution of these in photoshop even if i will be running my screen at 720p? I know that increasing the resolution is not the most ideal solution but would it be better than nothing?
2009-01-07, 22:17
maxposure Wrote:@djh_
When getting our posters ready for stark you told us that we wanted them to be at least 1080pixles in height. My movie collection includes many older and less popular movies so i have many posters that are around 750 px high. Do you think it would be worth it to bump up the resolution of these in photoshop even if i will be running my screen at 720p? I know that increasing the resolution is not the most ideal solution but would it be better than nothing?
If your screen resolution is at 720px and your images are at 750, then technically they'd get downscaled to fit the screen. And even if you were running at 1080, that's over 2/3 of the screen. If they need to be bigger than that, I don't think the scaling you could do with photoshop is going to be noticeably different than what XBMC will do.
Also, I'm in the process of uploading a LOT of HD posters to TMDB. I'm through the E section right now, so expect there to be a lot more selection in a few days.
2009-01-07, 22:31
maxposure Wrote:@djh_
When getting our posters ready for stark you told us that we wanted them to be at least 1080pixles in height. My movie collection includes many older and less popular movies so i have many posters that are around 750 px high. Do you think it would be worth it to bump up the resolution of these in photoshop even if i will be running my screen at 720p? I know that increasing the resolution is not the most ideal solution but would it be better than nothing?
Try this:
1) Open image in PS.
2) Increase image size by 300% using Bicubic Smoother resampling.
3) Use the Stylize-Diffuse filter on the Anisotropic setting.
4) Decrease image size to 1080p dimensions (1080 vertical). Try Bicubic Smoother and Bicubic Sharper and see which looks best.
5) Use the Reduce Noise filter on a high intensity and play with the sharpness setting.
It won't work magic but it's a decent solution. Actually does work magic on certain hand-drawn images.
@digitalhigh: Did you speak to the movieposterdb guys in the end? Sounds like you did.
2009-01-07, 22:44
Will there be any way to distinguish between 720 and 1080? Pretty much all my movies are hd.
2009-01-07, 23:46
Whats up with the NDA and interested third parties?
2009-01-08, 01:20
djh_ Wrote:I didn't think it was fixable, tbh. It's more a problem with how IMDb discriminates between production companies and studios. (It doesn't.)
Well now thats different from the way I read it. It came across as you were saying that xbmc is pulling the wrong feild of information instead of the correct one. If the actual information doesn't exsist correctly in the first place then yes its not a bug
